Tilden, in good and in bad ways. No other male player did represent tennis as a person like Tilden did. He transcended his sport and became a public figure - without the help of Nike or Adidas. His writings set the classic tennis standards. When Newcombe after his Wim win in 1967 was asked, how he had learned tennis, he said: By reading Tilden. Tilden became a figure in literature, too. Nabokov styled a figure in Lolita after him. I only know of Di Maggio in a similar way, who was cited by Hemingway or Paul Simon. Tilden also was responsible, that for a long time tennis was called a sissy sport.

For both genders, i would nominate the Divine Lenglen. She transcended sports into arts. Novels, ballets and plays were written about her, her match with Wills at Cannes was the most heralded and media studded match of all time.

Tilden, in good and in bad ways. No other male player did represent tennis as a person like Tilden did. He transcended his sport and became a public figure - without the help of Nike or Adidas. His writings set the classic tennis standards. When Newcombe after his Wim win in 1967 was asked, how he had learned tennis, he said: By reading Tilden. Tilden became a figure in literature, too. Nabokov styled a figure in Lolita after him. I only know of Di Maggio in a similar way, who was cited by Hemingway or Paul Simon. Tilden also was responsible, that for a long time tennis was called a sissy sport.

For both genders, i would nominate the Divine Lenglen. She transcended sports into arts. Novels, ballets and plays were written about her, her match with Wills at Cannes was the most heralded and media studded match of all time.

...like only a true french madmoiselle was able to...even if she was relaly ugly.

Martina Hingis was the closest to her in terms of grace and femeinity...nobody who has been with a real woman will deny it....

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

Yeah¡¡.I can imagine Jack Kramer as "M" and Bill Tilden as "Q"...Gonzales was a true villain.A Hoad vs Gonzales fight certainly would match and suprass any Bond´s battle, and possibly any heavyweight fight ever...

Actually, Hoad and Gonzales were good friends, they travelled together and shared the same cheap motels on tour, played pool together.
They also regarded themselves as the two greatest players ever, an opinion shared by Rosewall.

If Gonzales was a villain, then Kramer and Riggs created that villain in 1950 by mocking Gonzales so much for his heavy losses to Kramer on the pro tour. Gonzales' personality changed and he became determined to turn himself into a winning machine, something Gonzales did by making huge sacrifices and he was also underpaid by Kramer, both of which just added to the chip on Gonzales' shoulder.

When I hear descriptions of Gonzales during his amateur days, he sounds closer to Kuerten in personality, with smiles and an easy going nature, in stark contrast to what he became after 1950.

Tilden, in good and in bad ways. No other male player did represent tennis as a person like Tilden did. He transcended his sport and became a public figure - without the help of Nike or Adidas. His writings set the classic tennis standards. When Newcombe after his Wim win in 1967 was asked, how he had learned tennis, he said: By reading Tilden. Tilden became a figure in literature, too. Nabokov styled a figure in Lolita after him. I only know of Di Maggio in a similar way, who was cited by Hemingway or Paul Simon. Tilden also was responsible, that for a long time tennis was called a sissy sport.

For both genders, i would nominate the Divine Lenglen. She transcended sports into arts. Novels, ballets and plays were written about her, her match with Wills at Cannes was the most heralded and media studded match of all time.

It's amazes me to this day how one match, Lenglen against Wills is still talked about today. To me honest I cannot think of one match that I have seen in my lifetime that can equal that match, relatively speaking in people discussing it and the anticipation prior to the match.

And you are right about Tilden and how he transcended the sport. He was the Babe Ruth of his day. It was never about his opponent, it was either Tilden won or Tilden lost the match.

In a February 1951 AP poll on who was the greatest tennis player of the last 50 years, there was 393 votes in total and out of those 310 voted for Tilden, followed by Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Helen Wills, Suzanne Lenglen, Bill Johnston, Fred Perry and Ellsworth Vines. Of all the sports in which they asked that general question (baseball and others) Tilden had most votes in his favor.

To me it's a shame that Tilden has fallen so far in the minds of the general public because he was about as dominant as you can get as a player. According to Bud Collins' Encyclopedia, Tilden from 1912 to 1930 won 138 out of 192 tournaments. How many more dominant can you get?

Actually, Hoad and Gonzales were good friends, they travelled together and shared the same cheap motels on tour, played pool together.
They also regarded themselves as the two greatest players ever, an opinion shared by Rosewall.

Laver, in his book, remembered the first time he hold down Gonzales after a big contract discussion.He was amused at how, big and fierce Pancho was surprised to see that small aussie call him out.He thought he would get punched, but from then on, Gonzales knew who was the true boss of the circuit.

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

It's amazes me to this day how one match, Lenglen against Wills is still talked about today. To me honest I cannot think of one match that I have seen in my lifetime that can equal that match, relatively speaking in people discussing it and the anticipation prior to the match.

And you are right about Tilden and how he transcended the sport. He was the Babe Ruth of his day. It was never about his opponent, it was either Tilden won or Tilden lost the match.

In a February 1951 AP poll on who was the greatest tennis player of the last 50 years, there was 393 votes in total and out of those 310 voted for Tilden, followed by Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Helen Wills, Suzanne Lenglen, Bill Johnston, Fred Perry and Ellsworth Vines. Of all the sports in which they asked that general question (baseball and others) Tilden had most votes in his favor.

To me it's a shame that Tilden has fallen so far in the minds of the general public because he was about as dominant as you can get as a player. According to Bud Collins' Encyclopedia, Tilden from 1912 to 1930 won 138 out of 192 tournaments. How many more dominant can you get?

Yes, but Kramer pointed out that Tilden was lucky, he dominated a very weak field in a post-war period (come to think of it, so did Kramer himself!), and don't forget, Tilden won his first significant tournament (his FIRST, no less) at the age of 28! Many players start winding down at that age. Tilden must win the prize for the slowest developing player of all time, by a country mile! He was dominant at 34, which shows what a lack of competition he had.

[quote=kiki;6457231]Laver, in his book, remembered the first time he hold down Gonzales after a big contract discussion.He was amused at how, big and fierce Pancho was surprised to see that small aussie call him out.He thought he would get punched, but from then on, Gonzales knew who was the true boss of the circuit.[/

Gonzales' weak point was contracts and finances. Kramer, Laver, Hoad and Rosewall all did better than him at the bank, and Kramer defeated Gonzales in the latter's attempted lawsuit.
In the period 1957 to 1960, Hoad earned over $100,000 per year, which was much more than Gonzales' earnings, although Gonzales probably contributed as much as Hoad to the ticket sales.
Hoad was the first pro tennis player to earn over $100,000 a year from play on a regular basis. It took Laver and a decade of inflation to match this record (1959 dollars were worth about 20 times today's dollars).

Yes, but Kramer pointed out that Tilden was lucky, he dominated a very weak field in a post-war period (come to think of it, so did Kramer himself!), and don't forget, Tilden won his first significant tournament (his FIRST, no less) at the age of 28! Many players start winding down at that age. Tilden must win the prize for the slowest developing player of all time, by a country mile! He was dominant at 34, which shows what a lack of competition he had.

Tilden had Bill Johnston and the French Musketeers for competition. But for Tilden, Johnston himself would have had the same kind of dominance that Tilden had (or not too far from it), and the Musketeers won multiple majors between them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Gonzales' weak point was contracts and finances. Kramer, Laver Hoad and Rosewall all did better than him, and Kramer defeated Gonzales in attempted lawsuit.
In the period 1957 to 1960, Hoad earned over $100,000 per year, which was much more than Gonzales' earnings, although Gonzales probably contributed as much as Hoad to the ticket sales.
Hoad was the first pro tennis player to earn over $100,000 a year from play on a regular basis. It took Laver and a decade of inflation to match this record (1959 dollars were worth about 20 times today's dollars).

Gonzales was stuck in that 7 year contract he had signed with Kramer. Kramer would always sign challengers to Gonzales like Trabert, Rosewall and Hoad on much bigger money, which only increased Gonzales' bitterness at being underpaid. It's rather ironic that Gonzales was blamed at the 1963 US Pro for negotiating an appearance fee while nobody else got paid because of promoter incompetence.

Tilden had Bill Johnston and the French Musketeers for competition. But for Tilden, Johnston himself would have had the same kind of dominance that Tilden had (or not too far from it), and the Musketeers won multiple majors between them.

Gonzales was stuck in that 7 year contract he had signed with Kramer. Kramer would always sign challengers to Gonzales like Trabert, Rosewall and Hoad on much bigger money, which only increased Gonzales' bitterness at being underpaid. It's rather ironic that Gonzales was blamed at the 1963 US Pro for negotiating an appearance fee while nobody else got paid because of promoter incompetence.

Billy Johnston's biggest problem was his size ("Little Bill"). He tended to lose to larger, stronger opponents (like Dick Richards in the 1916 US final, or any number of matches to Tilden ("Big Bill"). The fact that Johnston was a clear number two for a number of years shows how little depth there was in 1920's tennis. Johnston died very young and his play was running downhill from physical weakess, and the same was true of Lacoste, the best of the Frenchmen (although Lacoste lived much longer).
Kramer refused to rate either Tilden, Johnston, Lacoste, or Cochet because he believed that they dominated such a weak era.
Tilden's slow development as a player (28 before winning an important title) is weird beyond belief. Tilden's whole career seems somehow disconnected from the general stream of tennis.

Tilden had Bill Johnston and the French Musketeers for competition. But for Tilden, Johnston himself would have had the same kind of dominance that Tilden had (or not too far from it), and the Musketeers won multiple majors between them.

Gonzales was stuck in that 7 year contract he had signed with Kramer. Kramer would always sign challengers to Gonzales like Trabert, Rosewall and Hoad on much bigger money, which only increased Gonzales' bitterness at being underpaid. It's rather ironic that Gonzales was blamed at the 1963 US Pro for negotiating an appearance fee while nobody else got paid because of promoter incompetence.

In the old pro format of marathon, head to head tours, the greatest draw for the ticket buyers was always the new pro, to see if he could beat the champ. This was true long before Gonzales' time (Budge was offered $100,000 to turn pro and play Vines, and Vines got second money). They often said that pro tennis thrived on fresh blood, and devoured its young.
Once the rookie had finished his first tour, he was no longer news, and it was necessary to find another super amateur to make the turnstiles click.
This pattern was broken in the late 1950's when the Hoad/Gonzales show played three times (Kramer wanted four), although Hoad refused to play the tour in 1960, only in tournaments, and withdrew from the 1961 tour with a fractured foot.
Laver and Rosewall played each other year after year, which was box office poison, because Emerson and Santana refused to turn pro (Emerson claimed that he could make better money as an amateur (shamateur).) The coming of Open tennis saved Laver and Rosewall from total oblivion.
Gonzales refused to understand how the system worked.

Gonzales was very unfortunate that the open era didn't start in 1960, as it could have done. That would probably have been early enough for Gonzales to win many more of the classic majors. 1968 was too late, as he was 40 years old by then. Rosewall, and especially Laver, were still young enough.

Yes, but Kramer pointed out that Tilden was lucky, he dominated a very weak field in a post-war period (come to think of it, so did Kramer himself!), and don't forget, Tilden won his first significant tournament (his FIRST, no less) at the age of 28! Many players start winding down at that age. Tilden must win the prize for the slowest developing player of all time, by a country mile! He was dominant at 34, which shows what a lack of competition he had.

Billy Johnston's biggest problem was his size ("Little Bill"). He tended to lose to larger, stronger opponents (like Dick Richards in the 1916 US final, or any number of matches to Tilden ("Big Bill"). The fact that Johnston was a clear number two for a number of years shows how little depth there was in 1920's tennis. Johnston died very young and his play was running downhill from physical weakess, and the same was true of Lacoste, the best of the Frenchmen (although Lacoste lived much longer).
Kramer refused to rate either Tilden, Johnston, Lacoste, or Cochet because he believed that they dominated such a weak era.
Tilden's slow development as a player (28 before winning an important title) is weird beyond belief. Tilden's whole career seems somehow disconnected from the general stream of tennis.

Complete nonesense! "Little Bill" and "Big Bill" were nicknames given by the media to make it easier for the reading public to distinguish them, both being American heros in "The Golden Age of Sports." Little Bill was about 5'9" and Big Bill was about 6'1". Neither is particularly relevant. Little Bill was the #1 player in the World for several years before Tilden overtook him.

I doubt, that Gonzalez would have won many majors in the 60s. In fact, he won only one pro major, the 1961 US pro, which had a weak field. In the 50s, he could well have dominated the US open at Forest Hills. In Australia and at Wimbledon, the Aussies, especially Sedgman and Hoad, would have given him a run for the money. On clay, Trabert and Rosewall did much better at the RG French pro (and the amateur as well).
Sometimes Kramer should have been more careful with his assesments. He himself profitated from the weak era in the after war years, when Europe laid in ruins (although sadly enough, he lost 3-4 of his prime years due to the war). His competition both at the amateur and the pro game was not that stiff: Joe Hunt was dead, Schroeder played seldom, Tom Brown was not highest class, at the pros Riggs and Budge were aging pre war stars, Gonzalez a greenhorn, Sedgman inexperienced at the pro indoor game.

He also was famous for all-night beer bashes before matches, and smoking with a twin-exhaust holder.
He paid the penalty with an early death and shortened career.

What's that. Something that lets you smoke two cigarettes at once? I googled it and didn't find anything. Sounds like something a pot smoker would want to do, but they have more effective ways to maximize smoke.

I doubt, that Gonzalez would have won many majors in the 60s. In fact, he won only one pro major, the 1961 US pro, which had a weak field.

Gonzales only won 1 pro major in the 1960s, yes, but he was in semi retirement quite a lot in the 1960s. I doubt that would have been the case had open tennis arrived in 1960, as that would have given Gonzales fresh challenges, and he was still only 32 at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban

In the 50s, he could well have dominated the US open at Forest Hills. In Australia and at Wimbledon, the Aussies, especially Sedgman and Hoad, would have given him a run for the money. On clay, Trabert and Rosewall did much better at the RG French pro (and the amateur as well).

Gonzales only once played the French Championships as an amateur, reaching the semi finals in 1949. But yes, Gonzales failed to win the French Pro.